How can we shape public policy to protect ourselves and our children from potential harm caused by wireless radiation? This question lies at the heart of a vital conversation unfolding in Massachusetts and across the globe. In a recent talk, Cecelia (“Cece”) Doucette, a co-founder of Wireless Education and an advocate for safe technology practices in schools, shed light on crucial legislative efforts, grassroots movements, and community actions. Her presentation—“Massachusetts, National and Global Policy Actions”—underscores both the urgency and the promise of addressing the non-ionizing radiation that saturates our modern environment.
From preschools to municipal government offices, many citizens remain largely unaware of the potential risks associated with everyday devices like cell phones, tablets, and Wi-Fi routers. Doucette’s message: we don’t have to wait for harm to be conclusively proven at mass scale. We can act now, using existing science, local bylaws, and legislative channels to safeguard public health—especially for children, whose developing bodies may be more vulnerable to radiofrequency (RF) emissions.
In this comprehensive blog post, we’ll delve into the main points Cece Doucette covered, exploring:
- The growing global and national policy landscape—from France’s national law to local U.S. initiatives.
- Specific legislative steps being pursued in Massachusetts to raise awareness of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in schools, communities, and private homes.
- Tactics used by parents and grassroots activists to engage local authorities and shape new regulations.
- Why Lloyd’s of London’s insurance exclusions hint at the seriousness of possible long-term health risks.
- Concrete recommendations for individuals seeking to push for “wired first” solutions and responsibly integrate technology into daily life.
By the end, you’ll see how Doucette’s experiences, along with parallel efforts by concerned citizens, exemplify a broader wave of public awakening. While the road to safer tech policies can be slow and complicated, examples from local towns to entire nations prove it can be done—and done effectively. Let’s examine how we got here, what’s happening now, and what each of us can do to ensure that public policy finally aligns with the emerging science on wireless radiation.
Global Policy Trends: From Cyprus to France
International EMF Declarations and Actions
Early in her talk, Doucette references a photo from Cyprus, illustrating how some countries have responded more decisively to EMF concerns. Cyprus issued an “EMF Declaration” that includes a 16-point fact sheet aimed at protecting citizens, particularly children. Moreover, the Environmental Health Trust—founded by Dr. Devra Davis—maintains a robust global database of policy initiatives, scientific studies, and legislative updates from around the world. If you think the U.S. is alone in grappling with wireless concerns, think again. An international mosaic of efforts, from government agencies to professional health bodies, reveals that many have taken the non-thermal risks of EMFs seriously.
France: National Limits and School Restrictions
Among the leading examples, France stands out with a comprehensive national law that:
- Prohibits Wi-Fi in preschools (kindergartens, nursery schools) outright.
- Enforces a “default-off” policy for Wi-Fi in upper-grade institutions, meaning that wireless access must be turned off except when actively needed for a specific lesson.
- Disallows students under age 16 from using cell phones at school.
These measures respond to a growing body of research indicating that developing children might be more susceptible to radiofrequency radiation. Notably, Dr. Doucette references comments from her colleagues that highlight the wide range of policy levers available, including national legislation, local ordinances, and school board resolutions.
Moratoriums Elsewhere: Belgium, Rome, and More
Emphasizing that “it’s not just France,” Doucette notes how Belgium (and other Belgian cities), Rome, and parts of Switzerland have also enacted or explored moratoriums on 5G infrastructure. Indeed, some localities choose to pause further expansions of high-frequency networks until more thorough, independent assessments can be made regarding health and environmental impacts. Such actions may reflect the “precautionary principle,” which advocates for caution in the face of scientific uncertainty, particularly when potential harm is significant.
The Emergence of U.S. State-Level Reforms
The Three-Pronged Approach
According to Doucette, activism around wireless radiation risk often follows a three-pronged path:
- Grassroots Education: Citizens learning, talking, and organizing.
- Policy and Legislation: Local or state bills addressing schools, cell towers, and labeling.
- Legal Action: Lawsuits and legal precedents, which can force reluctant entities to comply or pay damages.
When residents educate themselves and realize the potential consequences of unbridled RF expansion, they are more likely to press their elected officials for new laws or regulations. In turn, these officials may respond when faced with mounting community concerns or litigation risks.
Groundbreaking New Hampshire Commission
A key example Doucette showcases is from New Hampshire, where a woman suffering from electrical sensitivity approached her state representative, Patrick Abrami. Initially skeptical, Rep. Abrami embarked on a deep dive into the subject. Concluding that something was “off” about existing FCC guidelines, he drafted a bill in 2019 that:
- Raised pointed questions about liability, given the insurance industry’s (e.g., Lloyd’s of London) long-standing refusal to cover RF radiation–related claims.
- Wondered aloud why current FCC standards ignore a large body of peer-reviewed research pointing to non-thermal, biological harm.
- Asked for a formal commission to study 5G and broader electromagnetic impacts, culminating in the state’s official Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology.
This bill soared through New Hampshire’s legislative committees, signed into law by Governor Chris Sununu in just seven months. The resulting commission—staffed by scientists, medical professionals, and policy experts—embodies a state-level approach that stands as a model for others. In Doucette’s words, “Seven months!” is lightning speed in legislative terms, underscoring both the public’s readiness for action and the efficacy of well-prepared activism.
Oregon’s Emergency Legislation
Meanwhile, Oregon took a similarly proactive stance. Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson, a retired public health nurse, introduced an emergency measure that compels the state’s Public Health Authority to:
- Review relevant scientific literature (unfunded by industry) to assess the non-thermal impacts of wireless radiation.
- Focus especially on how EMFs may affect children in public schools.
- Provide recommendations for safer infrastructure, device usage guidelines, and public awareness campaigns.
Although finding volunteers or a graduate student to comb through the data is a challenge, the law mandates a thorough approach. As Doucette stresses, “They’re actually using the non-industry science.” By skipping the studies often produced or funded by telecom manufacturers, Oregon aims to avoid bias in its policy decisions.
Additional States and Towns Following Suit
It’s not just New Hampshire or Oregon. Doucette highlights how California, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and others are dabbling in EMF legislation or at least debating possible restrictions, labeling rules, or educational mandates. Many revolve around two major concerns:
- Child Health: Bans or restrictions on Wi-Fi in K–12 settings.
- Community Autonomy: Municipal zoning power to limit or shape 5G small cell installations.
Some states have advanced further than others, but the overall pattern is consistent: local governments are less willing to accept “federal silence” or “thermal-only” claims, instead demanding robust, independent inquiries.
The Massachusetts Landscape: A Flurry of Proposed Bills
A Rapidly Evolving Agenda
Massachusetts, Doucette’s home state, has become a microcosm of the broader U.S. debate on EMFs. Currently, 20 bills in the state legislature touch on aspects of electromagnetic radiation—ranging from child protection to utility “smart” meters. Doucette mentions Kirsten Beatty, another advocate who introduced 10 bills, and an additional 8 introduced by different legislators. Among these proposals:
- Safe School Technology: Encouraging or mandating “wired first” policies, restricting classroom Wi-Fi, or guiding administrators on safe usage.
- Utility Smart Meters: Requiring opt-outs with no fee, investigating consumer complaints about inflated bills, and halting further expansions until thorough health and environmental reviews are complete.
- Labeling Requirements: Pushing for clear consumer notices on cell phone packaging, akin to the “right to know” disclaimers used for chemicals.
- Healthcare Training: Encouraging medical professionals to learn about potential EMF health effects so they can diagnose and treat symptoms more effectively.
In Massachusetts, a bill must generally survive its initial committee by February in a given legislative session. Hence, Doucette urges advocates to call or write to committee chairs, expressing personal stakes in these matters and requesting favorable reports.
Doucette’s Personal Experience with Legislation
After discovering the potential hazards of unrestrained Wi-Fi deployments, Doucette initially believed Massachusetts lawmakers would swiftly respond. She was shocked at the legislative inertia. By 2015, her senator (Karen Spilka) introduced a bill on her behalf, and it miraculously reported out favorably from the Joint Committee on Public Health but stalled further along. Doucette attributes this, in part, to how the system is designed: a single “favorable” sign-off is rarely enough. Still, that success signaled serious interest in the science behind EMF harm.
In subsequent sessions, she worked with different representatives (e.g., Rep. Jack Lewis, Sen. Julian Cyr) who borrowed language from states like New Hampshire to address 5G expansions. However, the bills ended up in the Telecommunications Committee—often considered a dead end for consumer safety measures. Yet Doucette remains optimistic that with enough public support, these committees can evolve.
The Reality of Bill Progress and the Outlook
According to Doucette, “a bill rarely passes on its first introduction.” Over multiple sessions, however, the ideas can gather momentum, eventually achieving partial or complete passage. Each attempt garners more attention, fosters more public education, and persuades more legislators. Doucette shares hope that the 2023–2024 legislative cycle in Massachusetts might yield real breakthroughs, particularly around school-based Wi-Fi minimization and commission-driven fact-finding.
Municipal Actions: Shaping Local Bylaws and Ordinances
Banning or Restricting 5G
While federal regulations like the Telecommunications Act of 1996 can hamper localities seeking to ban cell towers outright (because they’re told they cannot “consider health concerns” in tower siting), Doucette references how multiple Massachusetts towns have discovered “workarounds.” They do so by:
- Adjusting Zoning: Setting large setbacks (e.g., 900 feet) from residences or specifying height limits that undermine telecom proposals.
- Mandating Random Inspections: Checking if actual RF emissions exceed claimed levels.
- Requiring Indemnification: Requiring telecoms to take full liability if health-related lawsuits arise.
Burlington, for instance, saw Verizon withdraw seven proposed small cell antennas after the city wrote a strong small cell policy. Doucette suggests that if enough localities enact tough guidelines, industry expansion might slow or pivot to safer, more community-friendly designs.
The Utility “Smart Meter” Dilemma
Utilities have been rolling out advanced metering infrastructure that beams usage data wirelessly, sometimes 24/7. Doucette cautions that “smart” often means a constant microwave link. The state pilot in Worcester faced major cost overruns and alleged misinformation about true signals’ strength. She identifies:
- Opt-out: Citizens being forced to pay monthly fees to keep analog meters. Activists want no-cost or minimal-cost opt-outs.
- Privacy: Data from these meters can be sold or misused.
- Health: Repeated pulses hitting residents’ homes and immediate neighbors.
Various Massachusetts communities have pushed back. Some have refused to adopt the new meters altogether, or demanded a wired alternative.
Grassroots Success Stories
Doucette enumerates local victories, from Dover-Sherborn halting a cell tower near a high school to Centerville residents blocking a tower proposed on church property. In Wayland, the default for new water meters is apparently not to rely on wireless transmissions. In Concord, a downtown tower project was scuttled due to organized community pushback. Over and over, Doucette emphasizes the role of “a handful of well-informed, determined residents” sparking major policy shifts.
Why Are State Agencies Slow to Act?
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH)
In Doucette’s experience, attempts to collaborate with the Massachusetts DPH have yielded meager results. Despite initial optimism, her draft fact sheet on EMF hazards languished in bureaucratic limbo for over three years. She references Dr. Deborah Davis’s 2015 panel of world experts who met with the DPH. Although the department verbally acknowledged the concern, official statements remain tepid or noncommittal.
Education Departments Deferring Authority
While Doucette and others repeatedly warned the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) about the potential long-term dangers of Wi-Fi in classrooms, DESE staff purportedly said they “await higher authority guidance” (like from the DPH). This cyclical deferral ensures that no agency actively moves forward. Doucette warns that until a top-level administrative body or a newly formed legislative commission issues definitive guidelines, schools are left improvising or ignoring the matter altogether.
The Spectrum of Motivations and Constraints
Doucette’s overarching sense is that state agencies prefer not to rock the boat. Funding constraints, partial reliance on federal guidelines, and decades of entrenched assumptions about radiofrequency “safety” hamper their willingness to distribute cautionary notices. Further, she mentions how in California, Dr. Joel Moskowitz had to sue the state to release a 2009 cellphone safety fact sheet, revealing just how deeply politics and legal concerns shape public health advisories.
The Role of Consumer Awareness and Tools
The Power of an RF Meter
One of Doucette’s strongest recommendations is acquiring a basic radiofrequency (RF) meter. These hand-held devices visually and audibly display the presence of wireless signals, turning an invisible hazard into something you can see or hear. She states that hearing the pulsing of a Wi-Fi router or a cell phone searching for signals resonates more powerfully than any theoretical explanation. It transforms “unknown confusion” into tangible evidence—a key conversation starter with school officials, neighbors, and local legislators.
The Fine Print on Phones
Each smartphone (e.g., iPhone, Samsung) includes disclaimers hidden in its settings or user manuals, instructing users to keep the device a certain distance from their bodies to avoid exceeding FCC limits. In iPhones, for instance, you can navigate:
Settings → General → Legal & Regulatory → RF Exposure,
where Apple warns that holding the phone directly against the body may surpass tested levels. Doucette encourages showing such disclaimers to teachers, principals, or family members, reinforcing that even manufacturers don’t consider it risk-free.
Recognizing Industry Insurance Exclusions
A little-known piece of data: Lloyd’s of London and other major insurers exclude coverage for harm related to electromagnetic fields. Doucette holds this up as a significant red flag: if big insurance houses have declared RFR a “leading risk,” why do localities sign contracts without considering potential liabilities? She points out that under many standard arrangements, if lawsuits arise over health impacts, the town may end up shouldering the financial burden.
What Schools and Communities Can Do
Education Before Mandates
Not every district is ready to “unplug.” Doucette advises starting with small steps:
- Hang up warnings about device usage. Let teachers and parents read the manufacturer disclaimers.
- Encourage minimal usage of Wi-Fi—turn it on only if absolutely necessary for a specific lesson, then revert to wired connections or offline tasks.
- Ask for teacher/staff training. Quick e-courses exist (like those from Doucette’s Wireless Education nonprofit) that highlight safe handling, encouraging staff to keep laptops off laps and away from children’s bodies.
- Inspect building setups. Where feasible, “wired first” solutions (Ethernet cables) can drastically reduce ambient exposures while retaining robust internet speeds.
Minding Student Attention Spans
One often-overlooked issue is the effect on learning. Doucette notes that giving students unlimited internet can degrade focus, encourage off-task behavior, or foster an unhealthy reliance on “Googling answers.” While not a direct “health hazard,” it underscores a broader synergy: the same technologies raising biological safety concerns also risk diminishing educational outcomes.
Building Bylaws and Zoning
Communities that worry about new 5G small cells or macro-tower expansions can update local bylaws to:
- Restrict tower heights
- Increase setbacks from sensitive areas (schools, daycares, hospitals)
- Impose thorough application processes requiring proof of need and coverage gaps
- Mandate periodic compliance checks to ensure real-world emissions match or remain under stated levels
Such measures sometimes prompt telecom operators to select alternative sites or designs. Doucette cites success stories in Concord, Dover-Sherborn, Wayland, and beyond, urging residents to adapt these templates for their own towns.
The Larger Policy Picture: WHO and FCC
World Health Organization (WHO) Developments
In 2015, hundreds of international scientists appealed to the WHO, the U.N., and member states to adopt stricter guidelines on EMFs. Progress, however, was glacial. Doucette points to a 2020 WHO call for a new “systematic review” on radiofrequency impacts—covering cancer, reproduction, cognition, oxidative stress, pain, etc. She welcomes the move but warns that official processes can drag on for years, leaving children exposed meanwhile.
2011 IARC Classification vs. New Evidence
Dr. Devra Davis, who co-founded the Environmental Health Trust, highlights that the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF as a “Group 2B possible carcinogen” in 2011. Numerous subsequent studies strengthen the link between prolonged RF exposure and specific tumors (gliomas, acoustic neuromas), suggesting an upgrade to “probable carcinogen” or “known carcinogen” might be warranted. Doucette’s stance: “Don’t wait until public policy catches up. The science is well ahead, showing actual causation of cancer.”
The FCC’s Ongoing Position
While the FCC remains the primary U.S. regulator for electromagnetic emissions from telecommunications, Doucette laments its outdated approach. She references Dr. Thomas Sherman and Rep. Patrick Abrami’s queries in New Hampshire about the “heat-only” logic, concluding that the FCC’s guidelines reflect unexamined assumptions from decades past. With 5G poised to intensify exposures, Doucette stresses the urgency of a congressional or court-driven reevaluation.
Key Lessons Learned from the Advocacy Front Lines
- Don’t Go It Alone: Doucette initially thought she could relay the issue to officials and see it resolved quickly. Instead, real progress required community alliances, repeated testimonies, and harnessing expert voices worldwide.
- Keep the Process Moving: Bureaucracies often move slowly or revert to inertia. Polite persistence—regularly following up with committees and agency staff—can maintain momentum.
- Stay Calm, Present Clear Facts: Overly emotional or alarmist tones can trigger denial in audiences. Doucette found that calm, fact-based presentations, aided by RF meters or official disclaimers, prove more persuasive.
- Be Prepared for Long Timelines: Even apparently “urgent” health issues can get stuck in a legislative or administrative pipeline. Activists must remain engaged across multiple sessions.
- Legal Tools Are Emergent: With communities increasingly adopting small cell ordinances and attorneys taking on EMF lawsuits, the legal system can accelerate changes in policy—especially if local governments risk liability for ignoring known hazards.
Conclusion and Call to Action
The Momentum Is Building
Cece Doucette’s presentation underscores that while progress can be slow, it’s undeniably happening. Internationally, entire countries such as France and parts of Belgium have instituted robust measures to reduce children’s exposures. In the U.S., states like New Hampshire and Oregon prove that decisive steps—like forming commissions or mandating health authority reviews—can pass with bipartisan support when constituents demand them. Meanwhile, Massachusetts stands at the forefront of legislative variety, with roughly 20 separate bills targeting everything from school-based Wi-Fi to utility smart meters.
Every Voice Matters
Doucette’s experiences show that an individual (like the New Hampshire woman who educated her state rep) can spark sweeping investigations. Moreover, local actions—like blocking a cell tower near a high school or writing a 900-foot setback into zoning laws—set precedents that neighboring towns or entire states can emulate. The legal insurance exclusions from Lloyd’s of London, Dr. Moskowitz’s success in prying out hidden fact sheets, and Dr. Davis’s global databases all reinforce the same message: non-thermal RF hazards are too significant to ignore.
Practical Steps Forward
- Join or form a local advocacy group: That’s how towns like Burlington, Dover-Sherborn, and Centerville overcame significant cell tower or small cell proposals.
- Press your state reps: If they’re unaware of the science, provide them succinct summaries, offer expert testimony, and show them that constituents care about EMF safety.
- Opt for wired solutions: In your home or child’s classroom, use Ethernet cables instead of defaulting to Wi-Fi. Encourage schools to adopt a “Wi-Fi off except when absolutely necessary” model.
- Monitor municipal contracts: Demand accountability for 5G or macro-tower expansions. Know that if insurers refuse to cover EMF harm, local taxpayers might be at risk.
- Stay up-to-date: Follow websites like Environmental Health Trust, 5G Crisis, or Massachusetts for Safe Technology for fresh legislative developments and scientific updates.
Final Thought
At the close of her talk, Doucette shared that her fortune cookie read: “Engage in group activities that further transformation.” For her—and for every parent, educator, or concerned resident—that sums up the mission: collectively transform our approach to technology so that it remains beneficial while not compromising health. The FCC may lag, and big telecom may resist. Yet, as Doucette’s stories reveal, communities armed with knowledge and determination can shift the tide of policy—ensuring that safe connectivity becomes a public good, not a corporate afterthought.
So, reflect on your own environment. Look at the Wi-Fi routers in your schools, workplaces, or community hubs. Consider contacting local committees or your state representatives to see if they’ve examined emerging science on EMF. Share this blog post, incorporate relevant references, and join the growing cadre of individuals who say, “We can have technology—and do it safely.” The next generation deserves nothing less.
